Election Keeps No One Out Of Heaven

[jbh28]

So, are you directly saying God desires that men perish?

I'm saying that God has the power to save everyone and Jesus' death on the cross is sufficient for all. So therefore, God could save anyone he wishes.

 

[quantumfaith]

Gotta throw this out before I go: I can't speak for all non-cals, only myself; but this non-cal says that God passes over the rest because they reject Him, thereby valuing sin more than they value God. Not because "God values our free will more than our salvation."

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[webdog]

God could have done this and so saved everyone. He didn't. WHY?

Justice and holiness.

 

[convicted1]

Justice and holiness.

AMEN!!! :thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[jbh28]

Justice and holiness.

That would be the reason why God doesn't just forgive everyone without the blood sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. It's not why he doesn't save everyone. God has perfect justice and holiness with those whom He does save.

 

[convicted1]

Good point 12strings. God passes over people in both ideas. God could have saved everyone. He chose to only save believers. Christ's death is sufficient to save everyone.

To quote Lee Corso, "Not so fast, my friend". In the Calvinist's model, God passes over some, because they weren't chosen before the foundation of the earth, were never gonna be offered Grace from the foundation of the earth, etc.

In the Arminian model, God offers salvation to all, but those who reject the call, and die in their rejection state, will die lost. It wasn't that were passed over, it's that they squandered their call to salvation by wanting to live their life, their way.

 

[webdog]

That would be the reason why God doesn't just forgive everyone without the blood sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. It's not why he doesn't save everyone. God has perfect justice and holiness with those whom He does save.

It is why. If He has decreed only those who accept the gift will receive it, it in unjust (and by extension unholy) to still give the gift to those who rejected it.

 

[Skandelon]

I would agree on them rejecting God. I believe the point was(at least when I say it) is that God could save them(has the power) but values their free will more than saving them. God could have saved everyone if He had chosen to do so. If one would disagree, then they would be denying the power of God.

Jbh, I don't believe anyone here is denying the possibility or power of God to save all people. We are all speaking of God's will or plan in redemption. He could make the rocks worship him (a plan I believe to be similar to the Calvinistic one), but instead our view is that God has planned to allow men to freely respond. If one does respond in faith, God gets all the glory for providing all that was needed. If one does not respond in faith, that individual gets all the blame for the same reason.

It is really that simple.

 

[jbh28]

To quote Lee Corso, "Not so fast, my friend". In the Calvinist's model, God passes over some, because they weren't chosen before the foundation of the earth, were never gonna be offered Grace from the foundation of the earth, etc.

In the Arminian model, God offers salvation to all, but those who reject the call, and die in their rejection state, will die lost. It wasn't that were passed over, it's that they squandered their call to salvation by wanting to live their life, their way.

I believe that God offers salvation to all and many Calvinists would agree with me. They would also agree that the non-elect reject God's salvation.

And they were passed over. They rejected the offer of Salvation and God passed them over. He could have saved them. Christ's death is sufficient.

 

[jbh28]

Jbh, I don't believe anyone here is denying the possibility or power of God to save all people.

of course. I wasn't trying to say anyone was denying it. I'm just showing where I'm coming from. If God can save all and doesn't, he's chosen not to.

We are all speaking of God's will or plan in redemption. He could make the rocks worship him (a plan I believe to be similar to the Calvinistic one), but instead our view is that God has planned to allow men to freely respond. If one does respond in faith, God gets all the glory for providing all that was needed. If one does not respond in faith, that individual gets all the blame for the same reason.

It is really that simple.

Oh, I understand. The big difference between you and me is that I don't believe man will ever freely respond on his own. The point that I'm making, or attempting to at least, is that as the OP stated, election is not about keeping people out of heaven. I've simply pointed out that both systems have God with all the power to save everyone but chooses not to. Yours states that God chooses to only save those that in their free will come to him. So, he's choosing to not save the rest. He could have. Christ's death is sufficient.

In other words, we still have the same mysteries. Another one is why does God create people that he knows will end up in hell. Both systems have mysteries with that question. In one, you have to ask why does God create people and not choose to save them. (or does choose to send them to hell depending on the theology). The other, why doesn't God only create the ones that he knows will come to him?

 

[jbh28]

It is why. If He has decreed only those who accept the gift will receive it, it in unjust (and by extension unholy) to still give the gift to those who rejected it.

Agree, but why did he decree that. He didn't have to. That's the point I'm making. He decreed to do it a certain way. He could have save all if he desired to do so.

 

[webdog]

I believe that God offers salvation to all and many Calvinists would agree with me. They would also agree that the non-elect reject God's salvation.

It is one thing to say there is a genuine offer, and another thing to redefine what "offer" means.

And they were passed over. They rejected the offer of Salvation and God passed them over. He could have saved them. Christ's death is sufficient.

Also, it is one thing to say the rejection was genuine, and another thing to redefine what "rejection" means.

 

[convicted1]

I believe that God offers salvation to all and many Calvinists would agree with me. They would also agree that the non-elect reject God's salvation.

Not any Calvinists on here will agree with you on this, I am quite sure.

And they were passed over. They rejected the offer of Salvation and God passed them over. He could have saved them. Christ's death is sufficient.

I agree with you on this.

 

[Skandelon]

The big difference between you and me is that I don't believe man will ever freely respond on his own.

No, it is not.

We do not believe men are left to respond "on his own."

God has provided:
1. The inspired scriptures
2. His incarnate Son
3. Chosen and inspired messengers
4. His Bride, the church
5. The Holy Spirit wrought Gospel truth carried by Holy Spirit indwelled messengers.

How is this "ON HIS OWN?"

In other words, we still have the same mysteries.

While I will admit we both have our mysteries, I would take issue with the insinuation that they are the "same."

I believe there is a big difference in the problem regarding God merely foreknowing the destination resulting from one's free choice, and the destination resulting from God's pre-determiniation.

 

[jbh28]

Not any Calvinists on here will agree with you on this, I am quite sure.

Calvinist would agree that the non-elect reject Christ and the offer of salvation.

Read number #14
http://www.oldtruth.com/calvinism/avoidingconfusion.html

It is one thing to say there is a genuine offer, and another thing to redefine what "offer" means.
Also, it is one thing to say the rejection was genuine, and another thing to redefine what "rejection" means.

The offer is genuine to all. God rejects no one that comes to him and accepts all that do. Calvinist (except hyper) would agree with me on this.

to say it's not offered to all would mean that some would come and be rejected. Calvinist would not hold to that(except hypers of course).

 

[jbh28]

No, it is not.

We do not believe men are left to respond "on his own."

God has provided:
1. The inspired scriptures
2. His incarnate Son
3. Chosen and inspired messengers
4. His Bride, the church
5. The Holy Spirit wrought Gospel truth carried by Holy Spirit indwelled messengers.

How is this "ON HIS OWN?"

Free will. you are still leaving it up to the individual free will.

While I will admit we both have our mysteries, I would take issue with the insinuation that they are the "same."

I believe there is a big difference in the problem regarding God merely foreknowing the destination resulting from one's free choice, and the destination resulting from God's pre-determiniation.

Where they are the same is that God could have saved them.

 

[Skandelon]

It is one thing to say there is a genuine offer, and another thing to redefine what "offer" means.
Also, it is one thing to say the rejection was genuine, and another thing to redefine what "rejection" means.

Well put! :applause:

If I 'offer' you a super bowl ticket that I have not even purchased, in a language you don't even understand, with the purpose that you would certainly reject it because in reality I have already rejected you, is it really an 'offer' at all?

I don't think so.

 

[convicted1]

The offer is genuine to all. God rejects no one that comes to him and accepts all that do. Calvinist (except hyper) would agree with me on this.

Okay, but is this offer extended to the non-elect, as well as the elect?

to say it's not offered to all would mean that some would come and be rejected. Calvinist would not hold to that(except hypers of course).

By this statement, you are saying that the offer is only offered to the elect. Is this what you saying? I am trying to better understand your belief, and what you mean by "offer".

BTW, congrats on the family "expansion". I will have you, your wife, and the "little bun in the oven" in my prayers.

 

[jbh28]

Okay, but is this offer extended to the non-elect, as well as the elect?

I believe that the non-elect reject the offer of Salvation. I also believe that the elect can reject, but not the entire lives. Believers were not saved necessarily the first time they heart the gospel.

By this statement, you are saying that the offer is only offered to the elect. Is this what you saying? I am trying to better understand your belief, and what you mean by "offer".

What I was saying that if God would reject some that come to him, then the offer wasn't for them. I believe that all that come to him will be saved.

BTW, congrats on the family "expansion". I will have you, your wife, and the "little bun in the oven" in my prayers.

thanks!

 

[Skandelon]

Free will. you are still leaving it up to the individual free will.

You mean the individual's RESPONSE-ABILITY, by which men are rewarded or punished?

Without this you might as well skip the first step and go straight to making the rocks cry out, because there is really no difference except these 'rocks' have arms and legs.

Where they are the same is that God could have saved them.

But that doesn't answer the real problem with your system and I think you see that but would rather focus on this point so as to lesson the difficulty of that problem, right?